The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow proper procedures under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in land acquisition proceedings.

1. Heard Mr. V. Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Sivashanmugam, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. P.S. Raman, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed, praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 10. 1997, and to quash the same and to further direct the respondents to hand over the land, comprised in S.No.12/3, Peerkankaranai Village, having an extent of 1750 Sq.Mts, to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has stated that the agricultural lands comprised in S.No.12/3, in Peerkankaranai Village, having an extent of 2250 Sq.Mts. had been acquired by the petitioners late mother Savitri, through a settlement deed, executed by her father, in Document No.175 of 1958. The petitioners mother had been cultivating the lands and had also been paying the agricultural taxes for the said land, in her name. The petitioners mother had died, on 13. 2004, leaving behind the petitioner, her four brothers and three sisters to succeed the estate, as successors of the property. It has been stated that on the date of the proceedings initiated by the third respondent there were 10 members in the family, including, Savithri, the mother of the petitioner.

4. It has been further stated that in spite of the fact that the agricultural lands belonging to the petitioner and the other members of her family were exempted from the purview of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the third respondent had invited a statement, under Section 7(1) of the said Act. The petitioners mother, Savitri, had furnished a statement to the third respondent, on 210. 1978, and the same had been acknowledged by the third respondent. Thereafter, by a letter, dated 8. 1991, the third respondent had called for the payment of Urban Land Tax, pursuant to which the petitioners mother had agreed to pay the Urban Land Tax.

5. Again, a letter, dated 110. 1996, had been sent by the third respondent, without proper verification of the records. Even though the address at Peerkankaranai had been mentioned, it was served on the petitioners mother at her residential address at No.182, North Usman road, Chennai. On the furnishing of a copy of the statement, under Section 7(1) of the Act, to the third respondent, it had been informed that the case was closed in K.Dis, dated 22. 1982. Thereafter, when it was found, in the month of February, 2004, that some of the officials of the fourth respondent Board were attempting to carry on developmental works in the petitioners land, enquiries had been made and it was found that certain land acquisition proceedings had been initiated in respect of the said land belonging to the petitioner and his family members.

6. It was learnt that the third respondent, without sending any notice to the address of the petitioners mother furnished in the statement, under Section 7(1) of the Act, had affixed the notice by using a stick in a vacant land. Thereafter, the formalities, for acquiring the said land had been completed by the third respondent. Even though the petitioners mother had applied for the certified copy of the impugned order, dated 10. 1997, it had been furnished to her only, on 12. 2004. Immediately, on receipt of the impugned order, the petitioners mother had preferred an appeal, provided under the Act, before the second respondent. After filing the appeal the fourth respondent had started developmental works in the land and therefore, another petition had been moved before the second respondent, on 3. 2004, for staying all further proceedings of the developmental activities. However, the second respondent had refused to grant an order staying the proceedings. While so, the petitioners mother had died, on 13. 2004.

7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the allegation